LexUNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus RANCHOD & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I ( UNION OF INDIA & ANR. A v. RANCHOD & ORS. DECEMBER 4, 2007 B (G.P. MATHUR AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder XL! Rule 31-Appeals from original decree-Land acquisition-Award of compensation by Reference Court-Appeal against-Disposed of by High Court without C considering the evidence on record and by a short and cryptic order- Held: There was non compliance oft he mandatory provisions of Order XL! Rule 31-Hence, Judgment of High Court set aside-Matter -4 remanded back ot High Court for fresh decision-Land Acquisition Act, 1894-s 54. D Government of India acquired large area of the land for establishing firing ranges. The Collector awarded compensation to · the land holders. The land holders sought reference to be made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for enhancement E of compensation .. The Reference Court awarded compensation for unirrigated and uncultivable land and for irrigated land separately. Both the land holders and the Union oflndia filed appeals. The High Court dismissed the appeals by a short order. In the other batch of appeals the State Government acquired F land for a public purpose. The landholders were awarded compensation. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation. The landholders filed appeals against the award of Reference Court. The High Court disposed of the same by short and cryptic order. The appellant-State filed a review petition. High Court dismissed G the same by a short order. Hence the present appeals. Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to the High Court, the Court. 873 H J 874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1. Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 states the subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High B Court from the award, or from any part of the award of the Court. [Para 5) [877-E, F) 1.2. Order XLI CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. Order XLI Rule 31 Iays down that the judgment of the appellate court shall be in writing and shall state (a) points for determination, C (b) the decision thereon, (c) the reasons for the decision, and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. [Para 6) [877-G) 2.1. In the instant case, there were large number oflandholders D whose lands were acquired and they filed separate objections under section 9 of the Act and separately sought references under section 18 of the Act. They separately lead evidence in support of their cases before the Reference Court. It is not a case where a single case may have large number of parties and the evidence adduced is E common for all of them. In the matter of determination of compensation large number of factors have to be seen, namely, nature and quality ofland, whether irrigated or unirrigated, facilities for irrigation like existence of well etc., presence of fruit bearing trees, the location of the land, closeness to any road or highway, the F evenness of the land, namely, whether its level is even or there are pits etc., its position in rainy season, namely, whether water gets accumulated in rains, existence of any building or structure and a host of factors having bearing on valuation of the land [Para 8) (880-C, D, E) G 2.2. The High Court did not refer to even an iota of evidence which was adduced by the parties and there was absolutely no indication in the judgment as to how it came to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the reference court required to be affirmed. There being total noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of H Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, the judgments and decrees of the High UNION OF INDIA v. RANCHOD 875 Court are set aside and the appeals both by the landholders and also A by the Union of India are remitted to the High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 15and16) (880-F, G; 881-A) G. Amalorpavam and Ors. v. R. C. Diocese of Madurai, (2006) 3 B SCC 224; Girja Nandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhury, AIR (1967) SC 1124 andSantoshHazariv. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 sec 179, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2108- 2194 of2003. c From the Judgment and Order date
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.